David Gregory Under Police Investigation Over Gun Magazine On 'Meet The Press'

I found this to be hilarious, and I hope he is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

David Gregory Under Police Investigation Over Gun Magazine On 'Meet The Press'

Posted: 12/26/2012 9:16 am EST | Updated: 12/26/2012 1:41 pm EST

UPDATE: NBC News had requested and was denied permission to use a high capacity magazine on "Meet the Press." Legal Insurrection's William A. Jacobson looked into an email allegedly from the Metropolitan Police Department which said that the network contacted the police before the segment. The MPD's Aziz Alali confirmed it, telling Jacobson:

"NBC contacted the Metropolitan Police Department inquiring if they could utilize a high capacity magazine for this segment. NBC was informed that that possession of a high capacity magazine is not permissible and the request was denied."

EARLIER: David Gregory is being investigated by police over the gun magazine that he showed on Sunday's "Meet the Press."

Gregory held up what appeared to be a 30-round gun magazine during his contentious interview with the NRA's Wayne LaPierre. He was asking LaPierre whether fewer victims would have died in the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School if the gunman had not had access to so many bullets.

Araz Alali, police officer and spokesman, confirmed to Politico on Tuesday that the Metropolitan Police Department is looking into “The 'Meet the Press,' David Gregory incident.” "There are D.C. code violations, D.C. code restrictions on guns, ammunition. We are investigating this matter. Beyond the scope of that, I can’t comment any further," he said.

The code in question says, “No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm," and has been mentioned by numerous conservatives making the argument against Gregory.

CORRECTION: The headline has been updated to say that Gregory was holding a gun magazine, not a clip, on "Meet the Press.

Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier’s spokesman Gwendolyn Crump emailed Wednesday morning: “Emily, MPD has completed the investigation into this matter, and the case has been presented to the OAG for a determination of the prosecutorial merit of the case.”

I've asked Ms. Crump several follow-up questions about the case, including why Mr. Gregory was not interviewed and why a search warrant was not issued for the subject's home and office.

Ted Gest, the spokesman for the District’s Office of the Attorney General (OAG), told the decision whether or not to prosecute Mr. Gregory will come "possibly this week."

Richard Gardiner, a firearms attorney, said that MPD referring the case to the OAG without arrest is not unexpected. “This is not unusual for high-profile cases. The police investigate the facts and give the results to the prosecutor to decide whether to bring charges,” he explained.

He added that, “It’s also routine in cases like this where the crime was not committed in police officers’ presence.” If the OAG decides to prosecute, a warrant for Mr. Gregory’s arrest will be requested.

I asked Mr. Gardiner if it was normal that the police would not interview the subject, Mr. Gregory, as part of their investigation. “I’m not surprised at all they didn't interview him,” he said. “The police usually only interview people who are not sophisticated and wealthy because the police figure they don’t have counsel and so don’t know that they can say, ‘no.’”

The police chief has led a inquiry for three and a half weeks into whether the “Meet the Press” anchor broke the firearms law on Dec. 23 when when he held up a 30-round rifle magazine on his D.C.-based show. Magazines over 10 rounds are considered “high capacity” by the District and banned. NBC called MPD in advance of the show for permission to break the law and was refused.

While Mr. Gregory got away without being arrested or going to jail, the police arrested 105 other people in 2012 on charges that included possession of “high capacity” feeding devices.

Mr. Brinkley refused to accept a guilty plea and went to the expense of taking the matter to court. At trial at D.C. Superior Court, Mr. Brinkley said of OAG’s Assistant Attorney General Rachel Bohlen: “I thought I was going to lose because the prosecutor was so rough. She was coming at me like I’d shot somebody.” Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Carroll Wingo acquitted Mr. Brinkley of all the charges.

So while the rich and powerful NBC anchor knowingly broke the firearm law, he was never subjected to the humiliation of being arrested by the police for breaking the same law as ordinary, law-abiding citizens like Mr. Brinkley did last year.

Justice can only prevail if the prosecutor's office at least offers Mr. Gregory a deal to plead guilty, pay a fine and be put on the Gun Offenders’ Registry, like so many others who have been caught up in the city’s inane firearms laws.

Its hilarious that an anti-gun liberal has broken more gun laws than any pro-gun conservative on this board. Even though he broke the law on national tv, I'll bet that he doesn't get charged with anything.

If they ban high capacity magazines, only criminals and David Gregory will have them.

Quote:

Washington’s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) has concluded its investigation into NBC anchor David Gregory without an arrest.

I'm shocked. Guys like David Gregory don't have to obey the law like ordinary citizens do.

People who aren't just pretending and are actually outraged about this seriously need to get a life.

I doubt that very many people are outraged about it. I think it's hilarious that he demonstrated to the nation how ineffective the ban is by bringing the magazine on television after being told not to by the police. I also think it shows how much respect he has for the legislation that he promotes. He (supposedly) thinks it's an important enough issue to debate/discuss, but he also thinks that he shouldn't have to obey the law that he's promoting. The situation also highlights a point that many people have been expressing here on the forum. You have to ask yourself why so many media personalities and politicians have been jumping on this issue with so much fanfare. I think that they are either generating interest in themselves or taking advantage of a tragedy to push an agenda.

So what is the point of having a law banning high capacity magazines if you aren't going to enforce it?

It was being used for demonstration as part of a news program on the subject. Who knows if it was even real. He wasn't walking around on the street with it. Had he been caught with it on him in public or in his car or something, sure, then charge him. But the current situation is just silly.

I doubt that very many people are outraged about it. I think it's hilarious that he demonstrated to the nation how ineffective the ban is by bringing the magazine on television after being told not to by the police. I also think it shows how much respect he has for the legislation that he promotes. He (supposedly) thinks it's an important enough issue to debate/discuss, but he also thinks that he shouldn't have to obey the law that he's promoting. The situation also highlights a point that many people have been expressing here on the forum. You have to ask yourself why so many media personalities and politicians have been jumping on this issue with so much fanfare. I think that they are either generating interest in themselves or taking advantage of a tragedy to push an agenda.

I don't see how you can be a regular on here and make that statement.

Legally, I'm not sure that briefly holding it for the purposes of discussion on a news show really meets the "possession" requirement.

It was being used for demonstration as part of a news program on the subject. Who knows if it was even real. He wasn't walking around on the street with it. Had he been caught with it on him in public or in his car or something, sure, then charge him. But the current situation is just silly.

Well, he had to procure it. Then, assuming he did so outside of DC, he had to transport it to the studio. Then he presented it on TV. All after being told not to by the local police. I don't see much difference between what he did and using one of those magazines at a DC gun range, except that Gregory was hilariously hypocritical.

Legally, I'm not sure that briefly holding it for the purposes of discussion on a news show really meets the "possession" requirement.

I was looking back at the thread after I read your comment. It looked to me like we were all having fun with how goofy this was, and joking about the irony of it. He did break the letter of the law though.

Well, he had to procure it. Then, assuming he did so outside of DC, he had to transport it to the studio. Then he presented it on TV. All after being told not to by the local police. I don't see much difference between what he did and using one of those magazines at a DC gun range, except that Gregory was hilariously hypocritical.

I imagine it was procured for him and given to him at the studio. I imagine NBC can probably access all kinds of things, including empty ones and props that look real.

You don't see a difference between holding one to show during a discussion of it on a news show and using it to actually fire a bullet? C'mon....

I imagine it was procured for him and given to him at the studio. I imagine NBC can probably access all kinds of things, including empty ones and props that look real.

You don't see a difference between holding one to show during a discussion of it on a news show and using it to actually fire a bullet? C'mon....

I haven't seen anything that would indicate that it's a prop. Using one at a gun range, or for "sport shooting", is in my opinion not any different than bringing one on TV to discuss/debate. None of those activities are going to be harmful but they are all illegal.

So if a police officer confiscates an illegal fully automatic weapon should he then be arrested for possessing it, and then should that continue until there are no police officers left, like some sort of half assed Inception sequel?

__________________
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father ... And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

"If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

So, a person unknowingly ships a high-cap mag or rifle through the NY or Chicago airport and gets caught goes through a shit-storm of court proceedings and lawyer fees, but a dipshit on TV KNOWINGLY breaks the law (bullshit law) after being told "no" by the police doesn't get into any trouble?